Case 2:19-cr-00204-JTM-EJD Document 1250 Filed 02/25/25 Page 1 of 6
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CRIMINAL ACTION
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`
`
`VERSUS
`
`
`TERRAN WILLIAMS and
`JAVONTA DOLEMAN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NO: 19-204
`
`SECTION “H”
`
`ORDER AND REASONS
`Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Exclude the Government’s
`Purported Intrinsic and “Other Act” Evidence (Doc. 1148). For the following
`reasons, the Motion is DENIED.
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`This matter arises out of alleged gang activity by a criminal organization
`
`known as the “Byrd Gang” in and around New Orleans, Louisiana, between
`January 2014 and August 2021. Twenty-one defendants were initially charged
`in this matter and only Terran Williams, Javonta Doleman, and Tyrone Bovia
`remain for trial. Each Defendant is charged in a Racketeer Influenced and
`Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) conspiracy, a drug trafficking conspiracy,
`and a firearms conspiracy. The RICO charge lists 50 Overt Acts, including
`instances of drug distribution, firearm possession, arrests, shootings, and
`
`1
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CRIMINAL ACTION
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`
`
`VERSUS
`
`
`TERRAN WILLIAMS and
`JAVONTA DOLEMAN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NO: 19-204
`
`SECTION “H”
`
`ORDER AND REASONS
`Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Exclude the Government’s
`Purported Intrinsic and “Other Act” Evidence (Doc. 1148). For the following
`reasons, the Motion is DENIED.
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`This matter arises out of alleged gang activity by a criminal organization
`
`known as the “Byrd Gang” in and around New Orleans, Louisiana, between
`January 2014 and August 2021. Twenty-one defendants were initially charged
`in this matter and only Terran Williams, Javonta Doleman, and Tyrone Bovia
`remain for trial. Each Defendant is charged in a Racketeer Influenced and
`Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) conspiracy, a drug trafficking conspiracy,
`and a firearms conspiracy. The RICO charge lists 50 Overt Acts, including
`instances of drug distribution, firearm possession, arrests, shootings, and
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cr-00204-JTM-EJD Document 1250 Filed 02/25/25 Page 2 of 6
`
`murders. The Government alleges that the Byrd Gang controlled the drug
`trade in a certain area of the city through various acts of violence.
`On October 10, 2023, the Government noticed its intent to introduce
`evidence of five distinct events against Defendants, arguing that the evidence
`is intrinsic to the charges, but if not, is admissible as extrinsic evidence of other
`acts under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).1 Williams and Doleman oppose the
`introduction of this evidence at trial. This Court will discuss each event in turn.
`
`
`LAW AND ANALYSIS
`The Government alleges, and this Court agrees, that the events at issue
`are intrinsic to the crimes charged and therefore admissible without reference
`to Rule 404(b).2 “It is well established that where a conspiracy is charged, acts
`that are not alleged in the indictment may be admissible as part of the
`Government’s proof.”3 The Fifth Circuit has held “that the government is not
`limited to overt acts pleaded in proving a conspiracy. It may show other acts of
`the conspirators occurring during the life of the conspiracy.”4 “Acts committed
`in furtherance of the charged conspiracy are themselves part of the act
`charged. Thus, evidence of such acts constitutes intrinsic evidence—that is,
`direct evidence of the charged conspiracy itself.”5 In addition, “[e]vidence is
`
`
`
`1 Doc. 954.
`2 Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) provides that extrinsic “evidence of a crime, wrong,
`or other act,” though not admissible to prove character, “may be admissible for another
`purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity,
`absence of mistake, or lack of accident.”
`3 United States v. Watkins, 591 F.3d 780, 785 (5th Cir. 2009).
`4 United States v. Quesada, 512 F.2d 1043, 1046 (5th Cir. 1975).
`5 United States v. Mendoza-Alarcon, 140 F. App’x 529, 534 (5th Cir. 2005).
`2
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cr-00204-JTM-EJD Document 1250 Filed 02/25/25 Page 3 of 6
`
`intrinsic to a conspiracy if it is relevant to establish how the conspiracy came
`about, how it was structured, and how the appellant became a member.”6
`“Evidence of acts other than conduct related to the offense is intrinsic when
`the evidence of the other act and the evidence of the crime charged are
`‘inextricably intertwined’ or both acts are part of a ‘single criminal episode’ or
`the other acts were ‘necessary preliminaries’ to the crime charged.”7 With this
`in mind, the Court considers each event at issue.
`A. Fast Food Robbery
`First, the Government noticed its intent to introduce evidence that
`Defendant Williams allegedly loaned an assault rifle to another individual for
`the commission of an armed robbery of a fast-food restaurant. The incident
`occurred in early 2018—during the time period of the conspiracy, which spans
`2014 to 2021. The individual to which Williams loaned the weapon was an
`associate of the Byrd Gang, and he and another co-defendant in this matter
`carried out the armed robbery. This Court agrees with the Government that
`this evidence is intrinsic. The event is direct evidence of the RICO conspiracy
`charge, which specifically alleges that members of the Byrd Gang circulated a
`collection of firearms amongst the members for use in criminal activity.
`B. Murder Solicitation
`Next, the Government noticed its intent to introduce the fact that
`Williams was solicited by a third-party to murder an associate who had stolen
`the individual’s car in exchange for a few thousand dollars and drugs. Again
`this Court agrees that this evidence is intrinsic evidence of the RICO
`
`
`6 Watkins, 591 F.3d at 784.
`7 United States v. Freeman, 434 F.3d 369, 374 (5th Cir. 2005).
`3
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cr-00204-JTM-EJD Document 1250 Filed 02/25/25 Page 4 of 6
`
`conspiracy. The evidence directly supports the Second Superseding
`Indictment’s allegation that (1) the Byrd Gang used threats and violence to
`promote a climate of fear and to advance the enterprise, and (2) Williams
`served as a gunman for the enterprise. Further, the fact that this incident
`likely occurred prior to the timeframe of the conspiracy alleged in the Second
`Superseding Indictment is not dispositive. The Fifth Circuit has held that
`evidence of prior events may be admissible as intrinsic evidence where, as here,
`it establishes “how the conspiracy was structured and operated.”8
`C. Williams’s Heroin Conviction
`Next, the Government intends to introduce the fact that Williams was
`arrested on April 11, 2018 with six grams of heroin concealed in his underwear
`and admitted to police that he was present at the location to make a drug sale.
`He was convicted of possession with intent to distribute heroin based on this
`event. This evidence is intrinsic as it occurred during the conspiracy timeframe
`and is relevant to Count 2, which charges Williams with conspiracy to possess
`with intent to distribute multiple drugs including heroin. It is also relevant to
`the RICO conspiracy charge, which alleges that the enterprise was engaged in
`drug trafficking. Accordingly, Williams’s April 11, 2018 arrest is direct
`evidence of the crimes charged.
`D. Shooting of Williams
`The Government noticed its intention to introduce the fact that Williams
`was shot on July 30, 2020 in a shooting on I-10 Westbound Interstate. The
`evidence suggests that Williams was involved in a shootout with another
`
`
`8 Watkins, 591 F.3d at 785.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cr-00204-JTM-EJD Document 1250 Filed 02/25/25 Page 5 of 6
`
`vehicle, and a passenger in the other vehicle was killed. Again, this evidence
`is intrinsic because the incident occurred during the time period of the
`conspiracy and is relevant to the crimes charged. The event is direct evidence
`of the use of violence by the criminal enterprise and Williams’s role as a
`gunman for the enterprise.
`E. Doleman Arrest
`Finally, the Government noticed its intent to introduce the fact that
`when Defendant Doleman was arrested in connection with this case, he was
`found in possession of a firearm and 1,200 grams of marijuana. Defendant
`alleges that this fact cannot be intrinsic because it occurred after the
`conspiracy. The Second Superseding Indictment alleges that the RICO, drug,
`and firearm conspiracies continued to “on or about the date of the Second
`Superseding Indictment,” August 13, 2021.9 Doleman was arrested on the
`Second Superseding Indictment a few weeks later. It is well-settled that “[t]he
`prosecution, as a consequence of the use of the ‘on or about’ designation, [i]s
`not required to prove the exact date; it suffices if a date reasonably near is
`established.”10 Further, acts that are relevant to prove a conspiracy may be
`admissible, “even though they might have occurred after the conspiracy
`ended.”11
`In addition, Doleman points out that the last Overt Act in the Second
`Superseding Indictment in which he is alleged to have participated occurred in
`2017. He therefore argues that his 2021 arrest is far removed from his
`
`
`9 Doc. 415.
`10 United States v. Grapp, 653 F.2d 189, 195 (5th Cir. 1981)
`11 Lutwak v. United States, 344 U.S. 604, 618, 73 S. Ct. 481, 489, 97 L. Ed. 593
`
`(1953)
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cr-00204-JTM-EJD Document 1250 Filed 02/25/25 Page 6 of 6
`
`participation in the conspiracy and therefore not intrinsic. However, “[i]t is well
`settled that to make out the crime of conspiracy, once the unlawful agreement
`is shown, proof of a single overt act in furtherance of that agreement by a single
`conspirator establishes the guilt of each member of the conspiracy.”12 “A
`member of a conspiracy remains in the conspiracy unless he can show that at
`some point he completely withdrew from the conspiracy.”13 The Second
`Superseding Indictment alleges Overt Acts by co-conspirators through 2020.
`Doleman has not provided any evidence that he withdrew from the conspiracy
`at any point prior to his 2021 arrest. Accordingly, his possession of drugs and
`a firearm in 2021 is relevant to the RICO, drug, and firearm conspiracy
`charges. This evidence is intrinsic evidence of the crimes charged.
`
`CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants’ Motion is DENIED, and the
`Government shall be permitted to offer evidence of the five events identified in
`its Notice of Intent to Admit Evidence (Doc. 954) as intrinsic to the crimes
`charged.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`New Orleans, Louisiana this 25th day of February, 2025.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________________________________
`JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`
`12 United States v. Veltre, 591 F.2d 347, 350 (5th Cir. 1979)
`13 Pattern Crim. Jury Instr. 5th Cir. 2.18 (2024), Pattern Crim. Jury Instr. 5th Cir.
`2.18 (2024)
`
`6
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
